4 ms·
I think that reasoning is valid for state-sanctioned aggression, or war to be precise. Personally I think that as long as collateral damage is minimal, we shoul
by Konnstann 8y ago
I think that reasoning is valid for state-sanctioned aggression, or war to be precise. Personally I think that as long as collateral damage is minimal, we should strive to develop the most deadly, most efficient weapons we can, specifically for the purposes of deterring unchecked aggression.
I don't think GP was making an argument that I should carry an AK-47 on me so that any muggers i come across are less likely to out-arm me.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoThanks. Per your 2nd para, why not, what's different in you legally allowing the availability of the most deadly means in the two contexts?
- Konnstann 8y agoNation-states cannot, in my mind, be compared to individuals when it comes to propensity for aggression. The vast majority of individuals, in, say the U.S. are not armed, whereas the majority of nation-states have a military. Furthermore, the countries that are in proximity to "aggressive" states either have a strong military e.g. Israel, or have military presence from other countries with strong militaries e.g. South Korea. Also, the distances between different countries vs the spread of information is also vastly different. It is harder to commit an international act of violence with no witnesses than it is an interpersonal one, and the threat of retaliation keeps violence at bay, for the most part at least.